Posts in "violence"

Guns & Governments: Does Arms Trade Matter?

Apr 10, 2013 at 10:21 AM

The international arms trade has largely been synonymous with strife, death, and inordinate amounts of violence. The sale of arms is an ancient trade, tracing its roots back to the early days of the Roman Empire. Arms trade, however, goes beyond selling small arms and military-grade weapons. Trading also includes the sale of personnel security, aircraft, long and short range missile systems, and any military-grade equipment that may be used for combat. These sales are more often than not stimulated by private military corporations, defense contractors, and government agencies seeking to maximize profit at the expense of the buyer’s treasury balance.

Arms trading is particularly vital to understanding a country’s stature in the world; it not only increases government revenues for sellers, but also defines life or death for millions around the world. Nonetheless, a gun can do little harm if a finger is absent on its trigger. Is the international arms trade to blame for battle deaths throughout the globe? Or are governments responsible for inciting violence, especially in regions like the Middle East? It’s easy to blame “arms trading” within itself; however, when calculating actual battle-related deaths, we find data scattered. There is little correlation between the number of arms sales made and the amount of deaths yielded as a result.

The Occupy Movement: A Dissent from Violence

Nov 21, 2011 at 11:43 AM

By Jayel Aheram

OWS Protester

On Nov. 17, protesters of the global “Occupy” movement marked the two-month anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street protests with marches, rallies, and various mass actions. They were protesting many things: corporate greed and its influence in our political discourse, a two-tiered justice system that favors the very rich and the very powerful, the massive bank bailouts funded by hard-working Americans, and the burdensome debt and chronic joblessness afflicting many Americans -- the so-called “99 percent.” Yet in cities all across the United States, these expressions of the very American right to free speech and peaceful assembly were greeted with violence at the hands of local governments.

When one reads or watches news reports about these protests, one might think that these protests regularly devolve into a violent free-for-all that justifies or even necessitates the brutal police actions inevitable follow. “Objective” and “neutral” journalists of the corporate media too often describe these confrontations between police and protesters as “clashes,” as if the protesters are the aggressors. In truth, the violence in these so-called “clashes” are initiated by just one side: the police. In the confrontation between unarmed protesters and heavily armed and armored police, it is the police that are the aggressors and the peaceful protesters the victims. There is not an asymmetry in violence, but just violence inflicted by the State and its police.

Violence of "Occupy" Movement Overshadows Message

Nov 9, 2011 at 1:33 PM

By Charles Vidal

The Occupy Wall Street movement began as a peaceful protest against alleged unfairness inherent in our economic and political systems. Although I generally disagree with the protestors regarding the solutions to the problems, I think they were right to bring to light the cozy and unjust relationship between big businesses and the federal government.

Unfortunately, whatever message the occupiers are trying to advance has taken a backseat to the general mayhem that has unfolded throughout the country. In New York, so many sexual assaults were being reported that the occupiers set up a special “females only” tent area. Furthermore, the organization has decided to handle the issues internally. Sexual assault and rape are some of the most heinous violations of an individual, and the prevention and prosecution of such offenses is a legitimate use of government power. The refusal to go to the police with such information should be considered an outright rejection of society and its laws.

The rejection of civil society has continued in Oakland. What was originally going to be a general strike turned into an occupation of the Port of Oakland, where the occupiers held port workers hostage into the wee hours of the morning. Businesses in downtown Oakland had windows shattered. In DC, old women were thrown down stairs outside of an Americans for Prosperity event, and attendees were assaulted as they left the Washington Convention Center.

Are politicians really against violence?

Jan 18, 2011 at 12:48 PM

By Elliot Engstrom

Since the recent tragedy in Arizona, I have heard more politicians and other public figures than I can think of make statements about how they condemn the use of violence. For example, Franklin Graham recently said of Sarah Palin, "Whether you agree with her politics or not, it is outrageous to suggest that her political opinions encourage violence toward anyone." Likewise, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi stated that we should not use violence to achieve our political ends.

But wait a minute -- isn't war violence? I am not suggesting that we as a nation never have cause to go to war. But, I do think that we go to war far, far too readily (despite the fact that Congress rarely actually declares it).

What do readers think? Is there a large difference between the violence politicians condemn and the wars they support, or are our politicians simply condemning violence in spheres where they are pressured to by society, and supporting it when it helps to get the votes they need or further their ideology around the globe?